|
VitalSigns posted:I must have gone ceazy and hallucinated a different thread because it looks like people are arguing, in 2014, that racial inequalities exist because blacks are too racist to allow themselves to benefit from a white-controlled society No, I'm saying post equal rights amendment unless the school is actually discriminating against minorities its not segregation and that blacks attending black majority schools are just self segregating themselves. Think more malcom X
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 00:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 18:55 |
|
|
ColoradoCleric posted:Since being discriminated against by white society blacks have been inclined to reject it by self segregating into black dominated universities. Tell that to the kids in the Tuscaloosa school system.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 00:38
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:Tell that to the kids in the Tuscaloosa school system. If they wanted to integrate they'd get off welfare, get good jobs, and be able to afford a house by the country club so they can be bussed across town to rich schools like the affluent white kids are.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 00:43
|
|
|
poo poo, I didn't mean to break this thread. Talk about the book.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 00:45
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:Tell that to the kids in the Tuscaloosa school system. Got a link handy?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 00:48
|
|
|
ColoradoCleric posted:No, I'm saying post equal rights amendment unless the school is actually discriminating against minorities its not segregation and that blacks attending black majority schools are just self segregating themselves. Blacks aren't disproportionately poor because they attend Tuskegee. WTF is with this thread?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 00:50
|
|
ColoradoCleric posted:blacks attending black majority schools are just self segregating themselves I don't think that's what he was talking about when he said resegregation. Think more primary education.
|
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 00:50
|
|
|
ColoradoCleric posted:No, I'm saying post equal rights amendment unless the school is actually discriminating against minorities its not segregation and that blacks attending black majority schools are just self segregating themselves. Since discriminating against black society, white people have been inclined to continue that rejection by self segregating into predominantly white colleges. Read Stokely Carmichael
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 00:50
|
|
|
ColoradoCleric posted:If you're a slave you're not making any income. The inequality of capital for everyone is also not explainable via inequality of labor income.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 00:59
|
|
|
Grand Theft Autobot posted:The inequality of capital for everyone is also not explainable via inequality of labor income. Generational wealth is.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 01:01
|
|
|
ColoradoCleric posted:Generational wealth is. The FHA denying home loans to African-Americans after WWII and thus barring from Black society a pillar of middle class wealth (home equity, suburbia) is a pretty clear case of where wealth disparity produces further wealth disparity in later generations.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 01:25
|
|
|
Negative Entropy posted:Are you going to back that up with anything or are you just going to go "nuh uh". Hence generational wealth.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 01:27
|
|
|
Basically what I'm getting at is that trying to accurately measure economic inequality via median wealth is that the number is going to be distorted for a large number of historical racism reasons or demographic issues than trying to measure current economic/racial discrimination via income.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 01:35
|
|
|
ColoradoCleric posted:Basically what I'm getting at is that trying to accurately measure economic inequality via median wealth is that the number is going to be distorted for a large number of historical racism reasons or demographic issues than trying to measure current economic/racial discrimination via income. Inequality caused by generational and institutionalized racism is still economic inequality.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 01:39
|
|
|
Job Truniht posted:Inequality caused by generational and institutionalized racism is still economic inequality. Income is going to be a better direct link to someone's current financial success. edit: blacks have only recently had a chance at decently equal incomes that would allow them to start saving generational wealth, symptom versus cause
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 01:43
|
|
|
Are you trying to argue that inequality did not cause the inequality that black people in America face? And that goes with your argument that black people feeling the need to re-segregate does not cause segregation, right?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 01:54
|
|
|
euler posted:Are you trying to argue that inequality did not cause the inequality that black people in America face? And that goes with your argument that black people feeling the need to re-segregate does not cause segregation, right? The generational wealth inequality is a symptom of historical prejudices more than it is wealth begetting wealth. Blacks being discriminated against and choosing to segregate themselves contributes to the further negative effects of previous discrimination.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 01:56
|
|
|
ColoradoCleric posted:Income is going to be a better direct link to someone's current financial success. Are you guys to argue that the "racial inequality" was always separate from "economic inequality", or that capitalism itself ever had problems in admitting racists?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 02:00
|
|
|
Job Truniht posted:Are you guys to argue that the "racial inequality" was always separate from "economic inequality", or that capitalism itself ever had problems in admitting racists? No we're just trying to separate the two post civil rights.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 02:02
|
|
|
For example, hispanics having much less generational wealth from the study probably misrepresents the segment as a whole as hispanics haven't faced as much discrimination historically as blacks and have had more generations living in the united states but recent immigrants would throw off the number as they would have no generational wealth but would still be counted as hispanics. edit: this example would have a more economic basis for the disparity than past historical discrimination
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 02:07
|
|
|
ColoradoCleric posted:The generational wealth inequality is a symptom of historical prejudices more than it is wealth begetting wealth. Blacks being discriminated against and choosing to segregate themselves contributes to the further negative effects of previous discrimination. Wealth inequality for black Americans is caused in equal parts by historical discrimination and (non-existent) wealth begetting wealth. Choosing to re-segregate might have further negative affects, but it is also a direct effect of previous discrimination. They can not end institutional racism, and re-segregation seems to be the lesser of two evils - either don't have any institutions or have your own. e: or rather, a choice between institutions that discriminate against you, or institutions that discriminate for you. euler fucked around with this message at 02:17 on May 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 02:09
|
|
|
Before this slips too far past, a review is in order:ColoradoCleric posted:Using the median isn't a really good measure since it just shows the difference between the highest and the lowest. This is probably used in a graph to make a very large bar. That's range, not median. Median is the "middle" outcome, with an equal number of instances above as below. In {0,1,2,4,5,5,11}, median = 4 and range = 11. ColoradoCleric posted:Pretty much, this is why the mode (showing what the majority of a segment makes) is a much better indicator. Mode is just "which number appears most." It describes a plurality, but not necessarily a majority. If 1000 people have 0-999 dollar bills, respectively (i.e., no repeated values), and a 1001st person walks in with $5, then the mode is $5. You can try to express mode in the form of an interval rather than a single number — e.g., which $50,000 income range contains the most people (based on eyeballing this, I would guess it'd be between $0-50,000 and $15,000-65,000, but it might be fun to find out in a more exact way) — but that said, I don't think it's giving you more a more useful figure than a simple median.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 02:13
|
|
|
Aeolius posted:Before this slips too far past, a review is in order: The problem is that the median is going to reflect more the racial biases in that white people are going to be over represented for generational wealth than current racial income disparities. If the majority of blacks are only making 20k while the majority of whites are making 40k it better reflects racial biases.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 02:18
|
|
|
Why can you not take both of those instances of inequality as evidence of inequality in their own right?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 02:21
|
|
|
ColoradoCleric posted:Got a link handy? http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/04/segregation-now/359813/
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 02:24
|
|
|
ColoradoCleric posted:No we're just trying to separate the two post civil rights. Racism was a symptom of a greater economic desire the planters had for maximizing profit and avoiding another Bacon's Rebellion. America Inc. fucked around with this message at 02:28 on May 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 02:26
|
|
|
euler posted:Why can you not take both of those instances of inequality as evidence of inequality in their own right? Because they mean different things, the whites having a significantly larger "middle" generational wealth is the symptom while looking at how many blacks have incomes of 10k, 20k, and so on and which one shows up the most would give you a better idea of what jobs they have that would contribute to that generational wealth.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 02:31
|
|
|
Negative Entropy posted:Slavery and colonialism seem like pretty clear examples of those that possess great capital exploiting a population with less capital, with the former enriching itself at the expense of the latter. In the South the planter aristocracy and the white majority it puppeteered used law to disenfranchise Blacks of as much capital or ability to earn capital as legally possible to maximize the amount of capital the whites could get out of the Blacks. In turn the largely poor white population was deprived of the capital it could earn out of a industrialized, non-aristocratic wage system in which you didn't compete with people who worked for free. The blacks in this case were heavily discriminated on race, while the whites were discriminated against economically and if you looked for what incomes popped up the most you could see what percentage of poor whites were disadvantaged economically without adding them to the same pool of rich white plantation owners. edit: and by majority I don't mean in the >50% case just the largest percentage ColoradoCleric fucked around with this message at 02:58 on May 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 02:33
|
|
ColoradoCleric posted:The problem is that the median is... No I don't think you understand, the problem is that you have no idea what you're talking about and are making it painfully obvious by trying to use statistical terms without knowing what they mean (surprising because they're pretty simple, not surprising because you're pretty stupid) What point are you even trying to make here? That economic inequality isn't a problem in America? That racism doesn't exist anymore?
|
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 03:14
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:No I don't think you understand, the problem is that you have no idea what you're talking about and are making it painfully obvious by trying to use statistical terms without knowing what they mean (surprising because they're pretty simple, not surprising because you're pretty stupid) The median is going to be thrown off by high income outliers, you want to see what the largest portion of black people make in income if you want to make predictions of future generational wealth.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 03:19
|
|
|
ColoradoCleric posted:The median is going to be thrown off by high income outliers, you want to see what the largest portion of black people make in income if you want to make predictions of future generational wealth. Jesus christ just stop posting until you read a wikipedia article on mean median and mode. The mean is the one thrown off by statistical anomalies. Like holy poo poo, this is literally 10th grade math.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 03:23
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Jesus christ just stop posting until you read a wikipedia article on mean median and mode. The mean is the one thrown off by statistical anomalies. Like holy poo poo, this is literally 10th grade math. Depends on the skewness of your data and I'm guessing generational wealth is going to be heavily skewed for a lot of reasons since many things can contribute to it. The point is you want to look at why blacks show up the most in the 30k-40k income range more than whites showing up in 40k-50k income range.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 03:26
|
|
|
There is literally no way in hell your generational wealth is going to be symmetrical.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 03:28
|
|
|
ColoradoCleric posted:The median is going to be thrown off by high income outliers The median is only slightly affected by outliers, so are you sure you aren't speaking of the mean?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 03:36
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:The median is only slightly affected by outliers, so are you sure you aren't speaking of the mean? Generational wealth is going to be positively skewed for a lot more reasons than race. This is the issue you run into: 
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 03:38
|
|
|
You need wealth to generate income it turns out, who would have thought? Since racism is over and all and it's been a solid 50 years why haven't we seen a trend in average wealth increasing for minorities? Maybe it's because wealth inequality is at least as important as income inequality? e:  Turns out income inequality hasn't budged much either, who would have thunk??? rscott fucked around with this message at 03:42 on May 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 03:40
|
|
|
rscott posted:You need wealth to generate income it turns out, who would have thought? Yes, basically. Really to get an accurate measurement though you're only look at 1 generation past that have had the opportunity to build that generational wealth, now we have to look at what contributes to further disproportional generational wealth.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 03:42
|
|
|
ColoradoCleric posted:Depends on the skewness of your data and I'm guessing generational wealth is going to be heavily skewed for a lot of reasons since many things can contribute to it. What depends? What question are you answering? What does this made up word 'skewness' mean? Why is it so hard to believe that racism has screwed over and continues to screw over black people in America? It seems like in addition to being ignorant of the math you're trying to deploy, you don't actually have a coherent point. Ignore list for you.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 03:44
|
|
|
ColoradoCleric posted:Yes, basically. Really to get an accurate measurement though you're only look at 1 generation past that have had the opportunity to build that generational wealth, now we have to look at what contributes to further disproportional generational wealth. what the gently caress does this word salad even mean
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 03:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 18:55 |
|
|
rscott posted:what the gently caress does this word salad even mean Post civil rights bill is the only real period you can look at families building generational wealth because minorities were discriminated against by the government it self and any measurement is going to be completely overshadowed by this discrimination.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 03:51
|
|